April 26, 2016--The Colluders

Almost as quickly as it was hammered out, the agreement between Ted Cruz and John Kasich to coordinate their opposition to Donald Trump--that the absentee governor of Ohio would not contest in Indiana and the absentee senator from Texas would leave New Mexico and Oregon to Kasich--that quickly, as reported in the New York Times Monday afternoon, the agreement began to "fray."

Largely because the signals being received from the political class was that it was a non-starter. Not that there was anything wrong with the odd couple carving up the territory this way, but because it wasn't working. And in the politics of self-interest all that counts is that something's working.

My take--

The agreement began to unravel as soon as it was announced when Trump tweeted his response.

The Donald said in a tweet, and subsequently, that they were "colluding" and that in every other aspect of life but politics, in business and banking collusion is a crime.

He called it like it is--"pathetic."

That took the air out of the balloon.

Kasich supporters (and there are some) said their votes were not to be traded away even by the person they were supporting and Cruz's supporters in Indiana (and for some reason they exist) said they actually wanted to vote for him.

So, so much for their pathetic deal.

Bottom line--

Trump's uncanny ability (bordering on political genius) to establish and control the narrative even when he is in trouble. Perhaps primarily when he is trouble.

Prediction--

This botched "alliance" guarantees that Trump will carry Indiana a week from today and with that begin to lock up the nomination.

My fear--

Donald continuing to be Donald has a really good chance of beating Hillary, assuming the FBI doesn't get her first.

April 25, 2014--Two Weak Men

Does anyone think the situation in Ukraine is headed in a good direction when two weak men's manhood is challenged?

One parades around topless, flexing in leather outfits while the other puts on a veneer of cool in search of his inner macho.

This may be one of the best recent examples of how the personal trumps the rational. It's all about mine-is-bigger-than-yours.

In an Enlightenment, post-Cold-War world reasonable self-interest is supposed to prevail. As the Godfather taught, "It's not personal. It's business."

Well . . .

A little history might be helpful--

In the 17th century, war between the Tsardom of Russia and the Polish-Lituanian Commonwealth resulted in Russian imperial control of most of what is now--at least for the moment--eastern Ukraine. And it wasn't until after the First World War that what we now think of as Ukraine was assigned its current borders and became semi-independent.

This is a mere sketch of Ukraine's shifting geography. If inclined, one can look back as far as the 7th century or as recently as the 1950s to see more ebb and flow.

So, in a rational or objective world, for the United States to be lecturing Russia, actually Putin, about Ukraine's immutable borders makes about as much historical sense as Putin chiding the United States, actually Obama, about our Southwestern borders, much of which belonged to Mexico until the mid-19th century. If we applied the same principles to ourselves that we are pressing on Russia, it would mean relinquishing Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and California.

So, what we are seeing is neither about history nor the aspirations of peoples from polyglot backgrounds (look at a current ethnic map of Ukraine if you want a glimpse of these deeper, nationalist problems) assigned to a fiction of a country, but rather the flexing of the out-of-control egos and vulnerabilities of two men who are locked in a dance likely spinning toward disaster.

It doesn't take a seer to predict that before too long Putin will make direct moves to re-annex at least the eastern half of Ukraine and who knows what else after that. And, in response, when Obama's layer of seemingly admirable cool cracks, who knows what fires within might be smoldering and what he might feel propelled to do.